get_formGet full details for one form by its id (from search_forms): description, regulatory citation, the exact fields it collects, and free print / Pass options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Form id, e.g. 'field-level-hazard-assessment' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (description, regulatory citation, exact fields, print/Pass options) and the ID source, making the operation's behavior reasonably clear. It omits edge cases like invalid IDs or auth, but these are not critical for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, well-structured with action first and a list of returned content. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter get tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input source, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already documents the id parameter with an example. The description adds meaning by stating the id comes from search_forms and identifying the form as an actual form with fields and a regulatory citation, going beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Get full details for one form by its id.' Explicitly lists the returned content (description, regulatory citation, exact fields, free print/Pass options) and references search_forms as the source of IDs, distinguishing it from siblings like get_form_maker_pass and search_forms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage: call this after search_forms to retrieve full details for a known form ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'from search_forms' hint provides a clear workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: form searching/recommending vs. tax calculations vs. pass purchase. The two form-finding tools (search_forms, which_form_do_i_need) overlap somewhat, but their descriptions clarify keyword search vs. plain-language recommendation.
Naming is mixed: some verb_noun (get_form, list_categories, search_forms), some noun phrases (hst_quick_method, required_hourly_rate), and one sentence-style name (which_form_do_i_need). No consistent pattern across the set.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool covers a meaningful aspect of the domain: form search, detail retrieval, categorization, recommendation, and tax/hourly-rate utilities.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover categories, search forms, get details, get recommendations, plus financial planning tools (tax, HST, hourly rate). No obvious gaps for a forms-and-estimates server.